I was told not to install my new restoration battery

[Michael J.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

You have been fortunate (lucky).

The listed "standard deduction" for batteries is 30% originality.

Larry

According to my Judging Reference manual, there is a 10% deduction for a battery appearing as described:

[p.139 of the '66 judging guide gives the exact descriptions of the battery, DC-12 #1980558 "Cat. No. 558" appears on the top edge of the case. The case is solid black without hightlighting paint on raised surfaces. The caps are black plastic screw-in types. The caps read "Delco" in large yellow letters across the center and "Fill To" on the op periphery and "Split Ring" on the lower periphery. The side of the battery nearest the terminals has the following:
DELCO DC-12
Original Equipment Line
Power Rated

All batteries are stamped with a production date and source code on one of the intermediate top covers. The format is YMS, Y for year, M is month, S is source.]

but without the appropriate date and plant stamping,

30% deduction for reproductions differeing from original design and construction in minor detail,

50% deduction for Delco, correctly sized, service replacement with
appropriate side or top post cinfiguration

100% deduction (Originality and Condition) for any others.

There is no description in the manual that the battery must be a "tar top" or even what that means or how you check. This battery is exact in every detail, and when properly stamped for date and source, gets no deductions.

In fact Larry, you are the one I listened to in 2009 on the R59 battery when you said:

"Ron:

I can't say for certain what the Lone Star Regional judges will actually deduct, but batteries are covered in the NCRS Judging Reference Manual under Section 4 Standard Deduction Guidelines:

Deduct 10% if the battery does not have appropriate date and plant stamping.

Deduct 30% for reproduction differing from original design and construction in minor detail.

For 1967 cars, I believe that the battery carries 25 originality points and 15 condition points.

For a current R-59 reproduction maintenance-free battery that is correctly date/location stamped, the originality deduction should be between zero to a max of 7.5 points. Since its new, there should be no condition points deduction.

I would expect a zero deduct, but some judges may find some differences and take the larger number. Judges have been known in the past to "thump" the top cover to see if the upper portion of the battery is hollow, or ask the owner to remove a battery cap to check for acid/lead plates. Other judges have not.

Larry"

BTW, I have not seen any judges thump on a battery. I think I would object were they to do that.

[Larry M.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

According to my Judging Reference manual, there is a 10% deduction for a battery appearing as described:

[p.139 of the '66 judging guide gives the exact descriptions of the battery, DC-12 #1980558 "Cat. No. 558" appears on the top edge of the case. The case is solid black without hightlighting paint on raised surfaces. The caps are black plastic screw-in types. The caps read "Delco" in large yellow letters across the center and "Fill To" on the op periphery and "Split Ring" on the lower periphery. The side of the battery nearest the terminals has the following:
DELCO DC-12
Original Equipment Line
Power Rated

All batteries are stamped with a production date and source code on one of the intermediate top covers. The format is YMS, Y for year, M is month, S is source.]

but without the appropriate date and plant stamping,

30% deduction for reproductions differeing from original design and construction in minor detail,

50% deduction for Delco, correctly sized, service replacement with
appropriate side or top post cinfiguration

100% deduction (Originality and Condition) for any others.

There is no description in the manual that the battery must be a "tar top" or even what that means or how you check. This battery is exact in every detail, and when properly stamped for date and source, gets no deductions.

In fact Larry, you are the one I listened to in 2009 on the R59 battery when you said:

"Ron:

I can't say for certain what the Lone Star Regional judges will actually deduct, but batteries are covered in the NCRS Judging Reference Manual under Section 4 Standard Deduction Guidelines:

Deduct 10% if the battery does not have appropriate date and plant stamping.

Deduct 30% for reproduction differing from original design and construction in minor detail.

For 1967 cars, I believe that the battery carries 25 originality points and 15 condition points.

For a current R-59 reproduction maintenance-free battery that is correctly date/location stamped, the originality deduction should be between zero to a max of 7.5 points. Since its new, there should be no condition points deduction.

I would expect a zero deduct, but some judges may find some differences and take the larger number. Judges have been known in the past to "thump" the top cover to see if the upper portion of the battery is hollow, or ask the owner to remove a battery cap to check for acid/lead plates. Other judges have not.

Larry"

BTW, I have not seen any judges thump on a battery. I think I would object were they to do that.

Michael:

The quote you provided above from the 1966 Judging Manual is not correct....you omitted two key words. The 1966 manual actually states on page 139: "The factory installed battery is a top post Delco DC-12 TAR TOP, #1980558."

Tar top batteries have a tar top, not a plastic top. That is the reasoning behind my earlier response.

The message that you quoted me on was regarding a R-59 battery for a 1967 car. This battery is different than for a 1966 car. Among other things, it does not have, or ever had, a tar top. The top is the same construction as the main case. So the answer is different.

Sorry if you are upset.....but my comments (on both posts) still stand.

Perhaps others have different opinions.

Larry

[Ronald L.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

Michael G.

Question on the conversion...

Those screws in the top - are those adjusted to provide contact to the old posts?

What size optima?

Have you redone the tar on the top (is this the reproduction case you are using)?

On the conversion with the optima...those scred intot he

[Scott S.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

Gentlemen, In August of 2006, I picked up a dated restoration Battery at Corvettes of Carlisle. I came back to Canada and installed it in my 1966. Shortly thereafter I put soft roofing Tar on the battery. I trailered the car to Florida and failed my PV, due to a door lock problem. I trailered the car home and repaired the door locks. We trailered the 1966 to Charlotte in early 2006 and passed the PV. We went home and trailered the cat to Boston in July 2007 for our Duntov award. The Restoration battery remained in the 1966. Fast forward to 2011, drive the 1966 to Western New York chapter meet for Flight judging. Then drive to Wildwood, NJ Regional for Founders Ops check and pass. Then trailer the car to Novi and drive to Kansas City, MO to join the Midwest Road Tour. We travelled 1,200 miles to Novi for a Founders Ops check and receive the coveted NCRS Founders award.
Thank you to all that assisted us along the way.
The Restoration battery is still in the 1966 Corvette. Five years later and running strong.
Scott and Kay Sinclair

[Ronald L.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

Scott, isn't the roofing tar blacker and stickier than the original waxy-tar Delco used?

[Scott S.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

No, That is the sealant the battery rebuilders use.
Scott

[Ronald L.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

What brand of roof tar?

[Scott S.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

Type I in the keg for flat roofing.
Scott

[Michael J.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

Michael:


The message that you quoted me on was regarding a R-59 battery for a 1967 car. This battery is different than for a 1966 car. Among other things, it does not have, or ever had, a tar top. The top is the same construction as the main case. So the answer is different.

Sorry if you are upset.....but my comments (on both posts) still stand.

Perhaps others have different opinions.

Larry

Larry, I know the quote is for an R-59 for a '67, and they are different than a '66, I have an L71 '67, along with an L79 '66, both with maintainence free restoration batteries. And I am certainly not upset, I would be upset if I had paid hundreds for an old fashioned lead-acid battery just to think it would keep me from losing points, I would be upset if my '66 or '67 restoration maintainence free batteries had any points deducted since they fit exactly what the judging manual requires, and I would be upset if the judges at the chapter and regionals I have attended tried to thump or remove caps to check any of them. But since none of this has ever happened, I am happy as a clam and far from upset. Perhaps others have had different experiences with judging than I have, or maybe, as you say, I am just one very lucky guy over and over.

[Michael G.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

Ron,

The screws in the battery are to attach the cables (one is shown). The screws will have to be shortened (I don't know how much yet). The Optima will be reversed inside the old tar top, ie, the posts will be on the opposite side of the battery. Each cable will be attached to an optima post, then be folded back toward the same polarity post inside the old battery shell, then screwed to that post also. The cables will criss-cross across the center of the battery.

The Optima is a D35.

The fit is very tight, even after altering the Optima battery and hogging out the walls of the shell. I still have some work to do inside the shell to make everything fit and insure that nothing shorts out. Its been done before, so I assume it'll work

The shell is the repro tar top that shorted out at Novi. I have not yet reheated the tar to make it smooth. I am going to try a heat gun.

This is all explained in the Restorer, I'll post the link later or you can search for another a thread on this subject (a month or so ago).

[Ronald L.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

I have seen the repro where the tar is hard shiny plastic?

Is not the real stuff for sure - can you get that stuff off by heating it?

Sounds like yours was made with real tar.

[Scott S.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

Ron, I am not sure as I did not have to do that. Can you add a small layer on top of the current stuff?
Scott

[Ronald L.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

Scott, No, this junk has to go....

[Michael J.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

I have seen the repro where the tar is hard shiny plastic?

Is not the real stuff for sure - can you get that stuff off by heating it?

Sounds like yours was made with real tar.

The one I have here:
http://www.restorationbattery.com/558dc12flange.html#

looks like tar, and feels like it too. Again I had no deductions for it.

[Michael G.]

Re: I was told not to install my new restoration battery

Ron, I have tried both types. Pics of them are in my earlier post. The dull appearing material on my "shell" is real tar. The shiny material on the other battery is plastic and cannot be removed. It is easy to distinguish visually between the two materials, whether a Judge deducts is open to his interpretation. The plastic is in my car now and works fine at this point. It will not be there for judging, as I think it will be too obvious.

The battery with the plastic top is from the company in Michael Johnson's post. It works fine, so long as you keep it charged. A few complete discharges and you may have issues, as I did with two earlier ones. I now keep it on a battery maintainer.

I suppose you could put a very thin layer of tar on the plastic one, but I haven't tried this.